Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[kitester]

So lets break it down....


So lets break it down....

You say "cars on that beach are a hazard, plain and simple." Well you get no argument from me on that. Everywhere that cars are driven are hazardous places. But I bet that if the parents had been standing next to a city street such as Park St or Union St. or any other street that is used by that many people they would have had a tighter grip on the child.

You say that “Parents should have every expectation that a public beach should be a safe place for their children to play.” Only a fool would assume that any place where cars are in use would be safe for unsupervised children. In fact no place is safe for unsupervised children.

You say that “Sadly, most of the drivers I've observed over the 18 years going to that beach simply use the sand as an excuse to hot-dog and show off.” Well you must be one of the most unobservant people on the planet. I been going to the park for at least twice that long and what I have seen is that by far most of the people who visit the park are very careful to obey the speed limit and drive with extreme caution.

Accidents happen everywhere. It’s a fact of life. Just the other day a woman killed her own grandchild in her own drive way. No one was really at fault. The child simply got away from its protected area. The mere fact that nearly 50 thousand people visit the park every year and not one has been killed by another driver, is a fantastic testament to the parks safety record. I doubt you can find another busy road in this town where someone has not been killed or seriously injured. At some point we have to realize that the parents of small children wherever they are must take responsibility. By the way the driver of the car involved in the Park incident was not speeding, hot-dogging  showing off or drinking. The child ran under the back tire as the car passed at 5 mph.

So enjoy Talbot Island with you and yours and quit cruising Huguenot Park looking for reasons to go elsewhere. If you don’t like the park don’t go. That way no one can call you a hypocrite.         

[kitester]

I received this letter just a few days ago .....

Friends:

As you know, members of various environmentalist organizations and staff of governmental entities have been working to limit the public’s ability to use and enjoy Huguenot Park.   Every year or two, a justification for a closure is advanced, and efforts are made to secure a “compromise” from the City, which must then be implemented by the City.  We have heard concerns about the need for family beach areas (notwithstanding that families would be the same ones prevented from finding a place to park), about birds fearing kites, and about all submerged bottomlands being “essential fish habitat.”  We have heard about the needs of the red knot at our park -- a non-listed species that passes along the northeast Florida coast as it migrates from Newfoundland to Patagonia.   Years ago, our governments eliminated any use of the dunes behind the beach for any potential use (including as parking areas), as such are now designated as critical wildlife areas.   We have closed all areas of the beach where baby birds are present until the last baby bird (seagull or otherwise) can fly.  Each of these compromises has the net effect of reducing available parking, which then causes the park to close prematurely during warm weather weekends and holidays when it fills to the available capacity.  The City then becomes the target for the people’s frustration.

In the latest effort to reduce public use of Huguenot, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has argued that further restrictions on public use of the park are needed to encourage more birds and additional species of birds to nest there.   Specifically, they propose the elimination of parking and the posting of signage to discourage people from going into the area of zones 11 and 12 (the point along Ft. George Inlet plus about ¼ of the remaining beachfront), together with having staff or volunteers at the boundary to “educate” the public about why they shouldn’t go into Zones 11 and 12, from April 1 through August 31 of every year.  Conveniently, the USFWS has paid the Audubon Society to help enforce the current restrictions.  They also propose to restrict people’s use of the area between zone 11.75 and 12.5 (the point), allowing only a 5 foot wide pedestrian corridor during high tide.    By the way, this is all from the same agency whose staff argued that they should have vehicle access to closed areas because it was too much work to walk so far.  (See http://jacksonville.com/community/shorelines/2010-07-15/story/audubon-officials-get-vehicle-access-closed-areas-huguenot-0, and email from John Milio of USFWS to Audubon and the Huguenot park manager dated 7/1/10).

The area in question is the key area used by fishermen, kitesurfers, and jet skiers, not to mention a large number of people there simply to enjoy the beach.  Various justifications are advanced by the USFWS â€" baby birds seek shade under cars, one vehicle drove fast over (but did not hit) a baby seagull, some species might use the beach for nesting if fewer people and cars were around, and dead baby seagulls have been found at the park (all living things die at some point; seagulls can be especially mean to each other).

In the past, the environmentalist factions have avoided suggesting that restrictions on people using the beach (without their cars) were necessary.  They have now crossed that line.

The USFWS goes on at page 11 of its memo to threaten the City with a criminal enforcement action if any migratory birds (which would include laughing gulls) are killed as a result of having its “feeding pattern” disrupted by humans using the park.  They cite a case where a local government settled with the feds rather than fight a charge involving a Hawaiian subspecies of shearwater dying as a result of having struck or been confused by a government-owned light pole.   This is an extraordinarily aggressive reading of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and a plea agreement is not strong precedent for anything.  The author of the USFWS memo, Cindy Fury, then states, “The local government in this case had been previously warned by the Service.”   I read this as a federal agency’s verbose and difficult-to-quote threat of criminal prosecution against the City of Jacksonville if it does not go along.  I think it is way out of line in this case, particularly in the context of demanding a set of detailed and broad-reaching restrictions that they want on the park.

Were such extreme readings of the Act implemented, we would see landfills, highways and parking lots emptied of people and vehicles because of the theoretical potential for migratory bird deaths due to daily human activities.  Surely all domestic cats should likewise be exterminated immediately by their owners under similar memos threatening prosecution unless specific feline management plans of their design are implemented.  I would argue that rather than their demands being necessary to avoid prosecution, the USFWS is instead advocating a policy issue â€" that the potential for increased bird use is more important than the use of Huguenot Park by the people.  They may also believe that restrictions on Huguenot are politically viable, as opposed to eliminating all outdoor cats, or TV antennae, or highways.   

If we want future generations to care about the environment, including the birds, we need to make it easy for everyone to be able to get out and enjoy our outdoor spaces.  It is not enough to say that the beach is available if you get up at 6 and are there before the quota is reached.  It should also be perfectly legal to do things in natural areas other than nature study.

Please spread the word to others who care about the parks and support your City leaders in their discussions with the federal agencies.   The City has been a good manager of the park and continues to defend the public’s use of the park under Mayor Brown’s Administration.   A call to Congressman Crenshaw and Congresswoman Brown would not be out of line.  When a federal agency threatens a City with criminal enforcement over the public’s use of a City park, they should know about it.   A call for a public hearing with the USFWS and the media present is also not out of line.    Please also let me know if you can join our group, the Florida Open Beaches Foundation, Inc., in its effort to promote and protect access to beaches in the Jacksonville area.  Thanks.

Tom Ingram

[kitester]

Here is the TU's article..... It full of lies.... again. I will show you which statements are patently untrue.

By Drew Dixon 
Federal wildlife officials want about one-third of Huguenot Memorial Park's beachfront closed to vehicles from April through August â€" the Jacksonville park's busiest season â€" in order to protect nesting sea birds.
The Army Corps of Engineers, which has the final say, said this week it will listen to all arguments before deciding.
Huguenot is the last remaining seaside park in Duval County that allows driving on the beach. There are already seasonal closings of portions of the beach when park management or bird watchers spot migratory birds nesting there. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's new recommendations go much further.
"The measures are not sufficient or conducive to restore nesting shorebird diversity and success within this important nesting area," said Cindy Fury, project manager for the FWS Florida Caribbean Migratory Bird Field Office based in Tallahassee.

FACT: THE THE MEASURES HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. IN THE PAST 8 YEARS THE NESTING COLONIES HAVE NEARLY DOUBLED IN SIZE EVERY YEAR. ON TOP OF THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO "RESTORE". THE MASSIVE COLONY OF NESTING BIRDS IS A RECENT PHENOMENA. IT WAS BROUGHT ON BY STORM TIDES THAT WASHED OVER THE TRADITIONAL NESTING GROUNDS IN NASSAU SOUND OVER 10 YEARS AGO. THOSE AREAS ARE NOW MUCH LARGER AND COVERED WITH VEGETATION. ALL OF THE SAME SPECIES NESTING AT THE PARK CAN BE SEEN NESTING AT NASSAU SOUND WHICH IS 4.5 MILES NORTH. I bet Cindy has never been there. I would like to invite anyone to go and take a look at the area called bird island. Of course you have to have a boat. I bet FWS or Army Corp could rustle one up.   

Fury said Huguenot is the "sixth most important sea bird breeding site in Florida and the most important on the Atlantic Coast in Florida."

FACT: THE HUGE COLONY OF NESTING BIRDS DID NOT EXIST UNTILL ABOUT 9 OR TEN YEARS AGO. THEY DID A CONTROLLED BURN ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO TO TRY TO MAKE THE PARK MORE FAVORABLE FOR NESTING TERNS. EVERY YEAR A "TEAM" OF VOLUNTEERS GO INTO THE AREA TO OPEN UP AND REMOVE VEGETATION THAT WOULD NORMALLY DETERE TERN NESTING. THE NESTING AREA IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT. IF LEFT ALONE THE TERNS WOULD EVENTUALLY LEAVE AND THE TERN COLONY WOULD MOVE 4.5 MILES TO ITS TRADITIONAL NESTING AREAS IN NAUSAU SOUND. Where are the top five sites?


FACT: NONE OF THE SPECIES BEING POLITICIZED FOR THE BIRD LOBBY AGENDA ARE ENDANGERED BY ANY HUMAN ACTIVITY AT THE PARK. NEITHER ARE THEY ENDANGER OF EXTINCTION. IN MANY CASES THE POPULATION NUMBERS HAVE BEEN INCREASING. NOT JUST AT THE PARK, BUT EVERYWHERE.  RED KNOTS (FEEDING MIGRANT), ROYAL TERNS, LEAST TERNS, BLACK SKIMMERS, LAUGHING GULLS AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHERS AND WILSON'S PLOVERS ARE ALL CONSIDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF WILD LIFE (IUCN) TO BE SPECIES OF "LEAST CONCERN".  DATA IS COLLECTED FROM SOURCES LIKE AUDUBON, CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND INDEPENDENT STUDIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND POSTED AS A CLEARING HOUSE FOR FACTS THAT SCIENTISTS USE TO DETERMINE THE TRUE THREAT TO ANIMAL SPECIES. GOOGLE IT.     


FWS wants the park's northern portion to be temporarily closed to vehicles annually from April 1 to Aug. 31.
According to the city's figures, about 307,000 people visited the park in the past fiscal year.

FACT: NESTING ACTIVITY AND BREEDING DO NOT TAKE PLACE UNTILL MAY. THE HUGUENOT PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN CALLS FOR THE FIRST SEASONAL CLOSURE TO BEGIN BASED ON FLEDGELING BIRDS EMERGING FOR THE DUNE LINE. THE TRIGGER NUMBER IS THREE BUT THE CITY PUTS THE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE A FEW DAYS EARLY. THERE IS NO NEED TO REMOVE THE CARS BEFOR THAT.     


The corps still owns portions of the land at Huguenot and has a 25-year lease agreement renewal, which it hasn't finalized, that allows Jacksonville to operate the park.

FACT: THE CITY AND OUR COUNCILMEN HAVE CONTINUED TO MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HUGUENOT PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE PAID BIRD LOBBY HAS BLOCKED THE LEASE RENEWAL WITH THREATS AND LIES AIMED AT THE CITY AND THE PARK PATRONS.   


Jason Spinning, chief of the Jacksonville coastal sector for the corps, said the agency is reviewing all viewpoints and it is "not out of the question" that it will hold a public hearing on the issue.
Beach access advocates have battled for years to keep Huguenot open to vehicles and are already rallying to fight the recommendation.
"It's a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats making a decision to kick the owners of the property out of their own property," said Bobby Taylor, founder of Friends of Huguenot Memorial Park and president of the Florida Open Beaches Foundation.

FACT: THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT NAMELESS OR FACELESS. THEY ARE NOT BUREAUCRATS EITHER. THEY ARE SKILLED, WELL PAID LOBBYISTS WHOS JOBS DEPEND ON THE CONFLICT THAT SUROUNDS THE PARK AND OTHER PLACES LIKE IT. IT IS TRUE THAT MANY OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN RULE MAKING AND POLICY CHANGE ARE NOT AWARE OF THE REAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE PARK. SOME HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THE PARK. MEMBERS OF ARC ONLY VISITED THE PARK AFTER THEY WERE ASKED BY THE CITY TO COME AND VIEW IT FOR THEMSELVES.  THE LOBBYISTS ARE KNOCKING ON THEIR DOORS REPEATEDLY WITH THIER OWN VERSION VERSION OF THE TRUTH WHICH HAS LITTLE IF ANY TRUTH IN IT. 


Taylor said part of the stewardship that Friends of Huguenot provides is environmental protection and the group has done more than just make sure birds are left alone.
"By everybody's measure, we have done everything to protect these species," he said. "We have been proactive and we're being told we're the problem still."


FACT: MR. TAYLOR HAS FOR YEARS BEEN THE CERTIFIED INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF TURTLE NESTS AT THE PARK. HIS EFFORTS HAVE INSURED THAT THE PARK REMAINS ON OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE TURTLE NESTING SITES IN FLORIDA. NOT ONCE HAS A TURTLE NEST BEEN DISTURBED BY THE PUBLIC EVEN THOUGH THE NESTS ARE SEPARATED FOR PEOPLE BY ONLY A FEW FEET.


Fury said Tuesday that royal terns and laughing gulls already nest in the dunes at Huguenot, which are protected from all access. But increasing species, such as the least tern, have taken to nesting on the beach itself and the birds need protection.

FACT: THERE IS NO NESTING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF THE ALREADY POSTED AREAS


"We have no interest in closing access to all the beaches at Huguenot," Fury said. "We recommended April through the end of August because that's the breeding season for these important shore birds."
Her recommendations also reflect a broader effort by federal officials to protect waterfowl at seaside parks, though Fury stressed her recommendations are specifically targeted for Huguenot.


FACT: IN EVERY INSTANCE THAT A FURTHER RECOMMENDED CLOSURE IS APPROVED THE LOBBYISTS FOLLOW IT WITH MORE "RECOMMENDATIONS" FOR MORE CLOSURES.   


She added that she still recommends pedestrian access to the area.
The National Park Service in North Carolina closed beaches on the Outer Banks in February to vehicles in hopes of protecting nesting sea birds.

FACT: 9 BIRDS WERE USED AS AN EXCUSE TO CLOSE ALMOST 100 MILES OF OBX BEACHES.

The National Park Service also closed another popular beach in Florida that used to have vehicle access in 2010. That's when vehicles were restricted from entering Fort Matanzas National Monument Park in St. Johns County, also due to concerns over protection of sea birds.


FACT: THE SAME PEOPLE TOLD THE SAME LIE.  THEY SAID THAT THE MATANZAS AREA WAS THE ONLY AREA WHERE THESE BIRDS HAD TO NEST. IN FACT THERE WAS NO NESTING COLONY THERE PRIOR TO ABOUT 8 YEARS AGO. JUST AS HUGUENOT PARK HAS BECOME THE RECENT NESTING SITE FOR LAUGHING GULLS AND TERNS MATANZAS BECAME ONE IN EVEN LESS TIME.



Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-05-02/story/wildlife-agency-pushes-restrict-beach-driving-parts-huguenot-park#ixzz1u5KMPfyc

[kitester]

Its also interesting to note that the same groups and govt. organizations were responsible for the lie about nesting birds in Boca Grand. Claims were made of endangered birds nesting on a beach to remove the public from the area. An independent ornithologist was hired to review those claims and after three days could find not even one single nest or even attempted nesting. Turns out that the FWS was duped by audubon reps (lobbyists) into closing the area just on their say so. After the truth was determined the FWS quickly removed the posting signs and the public could once again use the beach.

[BridgeTroll]

Face it kitester... the lobbyists are good at what they do.  The stereotype of the beer swilling, pick up driver running down children and stomping baby birds into mush is too ingrained in the minds of those who make the decisions (but do not actually use the area).  What I do not understand is why they wish to restrict access to that beach to only the fittest and most determined segment of the public...

[JettyDog]

Bridgetroll, indeed. Why is Duval Audubon so intent on discriminating against handicapped folks who cannot navigate the stretch from the parking lot or the bay side to ocean side? I see where the Wounded Warriors held a Surf Camp Saturday for those injured serving their country and protecting all of us. If you scan the pictures, one of those soldiers (Capt. Robert Whitters ) is missing a foot from a possible improvised explosive device that he encountered while serving on active duty in Afghanistan. The article is here:

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-05-12/story/wounded-warriors-get-some-quality-surf-time-huguenot?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomNews+%28Jacksonville+Local+News+%E2%80%93+Jacksonville.com+and+The+Florida+Times-Union%29

     But they are not the only ones. I spoke to a Nassau Co. Deputy Sherriff a few weeks ago whose daughter had a debilitating disease that confined her to a wheel chair . She told me she could not navigate the passage leading out to the ocean side with her daughter in a wheel chair and had to drive out so her daughter could access the ocean after she had gotten the wheel chair out of the vehicle and placed her daughter in it.
     That same law enforcement officer also bemoaned the fact that some parents do not watch over their children properly while at the Park. Would you allow your kids to play in traffic? I think not. Children can be hit by vehicles anywhere in Jacksonville. What should we do? Ban all traffic in the city in order to keep children from being hit by cars? Of course not.                   
     Somewhere, there is a responsibility of parents to watch over their children and protect them from harm. Society demands it. Not only expects it, but demands it. Folks are put in jail all the time for child neglect where and when children are injured.  The irresponsible parent is a stereotype also as is the careful driver who has never had an accident that suddenly has a child dart out in front of their vehicle and who cannot stop in time. The careful driver stereotype is overlooked solely because there is no notoriety associated with them . As far as the beer swilling pick up driver stereotype is concerned, the City and the Park does ticket and ban those who are caught in the park with alcohol. It is posted....NO ALCOHOL ALLOWED . I've seen a few examples of that too. So, do we now reinstate Prohibition also? That didn't work the first time either, as history tells us. By the way, do you or anyone have evidence like photos or video of someone stomping baby birds, and , if so, did you or they turn that over to the proper authorities? If I catch someone doing that , I definitely will. That's a promise. I always have my camera out there.
     The answer is not to ban driving , but hold those irresponsible persons accountable for their actions, plain and simple. That way we all can  enjoy the beach, the surf and the birds, not just a select , elite group of selfish citizens who are bent on throwing all the rest of us out of the Park so they can covet it for themselves.

[JettyDog]

DARING JSO AIR OPERATIONS RESCUE
       I spoke to Park Manager Chris Winterman yesterday and he told me about a daring rescue that occurred sometime in the last week at Huguenot. Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Air Operations frequently patrols the beach at Huguenot via helicopter helping the ground units with any problems that should arise during the course of a normal  crowded day at the Park. While patrolling one day last week, they spotted a person in the water. They drew close and tossed a buoy to the person , but the individual did not respond and didn't reach for the flotation device. Realizing the person might be unconscious, the yet unnamed chopper copilot leaped from the hovering aircraft into the water and rescued the man from an almost guaranteed drowning, keeping him afloat until Ocean Rescue was able to make it out to the man and bring him safely to shore. The chopper copilot should be commended for risking his life to save a distressed swimmer and helping to keep Huguenot and all of us a bit safer out there.

[Noone]

Thanks for posting. Some news orginization will share this story. You see them training all the time from NAS in the river. Great teamwork with pilot and crew.

[kitester]

If I ,

There certinanly must be some amount of increased pollution wherever large groups of people go. The park is no exception. BUT I bet that there is far more environmental damage done by driving to the park than by driving on it. On top of that there are far more animal deaths caused by cars on paved roads. While the bird lobby screams about potential bird deaths at the park due to human causes they ignore the deaths of truly endangered species and the loss of wild habitat along Heckshore dr. It's just like the public safety issue Audubon and Sierra Club keep trying to use to ban beach driving. It's far more dangerous to drive to the park than to drive in the park.

The fight over the park is really just about money. If there was no controversy to enflame a donating public there would be no money to pay for the lobbyists who fan those flames.

[JettyDog]

If_I_Loved_you,
     You are stunningly misinformed about the pollution that the cars at Huguenot emit. In fact, the cargo and container ships entering the St. John's River headed to our Port cause more pollution to Huguenot's environment than the cars do on an annual basis. You have not done your homework. I submit , as evidence, the following information:

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

   Now, admittedly, we don't have supercargo container ships entering the River, however, the diesel engines on those ships emit FAR more pollution than the cars that visit the Park. Under the circumstances, I humbly suggest we relocate any bird colonies to other, safer, less polluted areas along the coast as far away from any ship traffic as possible, say, Big Talbot or Bird Island. By continuing to protect the birds at Huguenot, we are not doing them any favors, but subjecting them to more danger from the ship pollution of the cargo/container ships entering the Port than the cars that visit Huguenot every year. After all, what would be the alternative? Shutting down the Port and devastating the City's economy and livelyhood? Relocation would be far more cost effective as well as healthier for the birds in every imagineable way and is the wisest course of action. Wouldn't you agree?

[Overstreet]

The "vehicle pollution" load is only temporary concentrated on the weekend. The ship traffic, and road run off  is a 7 day a week item.  If you are concerned about pollution then banning people all together should be your goal. Where people go trash follows. You also know what all those people do in the water.

If pollution of the river is your concern then the flushing of the toilet, clean storm drains and the fertilizing of the yard should be your focus. 

[JettyDog]

I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

[JettyDog]

I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

"The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River" Jettydog if your facts are true then you and the other beach-goers should be removed for your own safety?

      So, it comes down to who we "protect/remove"? The birds or the humans? If Audobon is sincere about the birds, then we remove/relocate the birds. If they are not , then throw the humans off the beach in the name of "safety", and let the birds suffer from pollution? A difficult choice, indeed. Audubon is all about the birds, not the human species. We humans accept the pollution, as thinking, sentient beings. We know there is an danger, but accept it in a trade-off in order to enjoy nature and the BIRDS. The birds don't have a choice, much less a voice, hence, Audubon speaks for them . Am I wrong in making that statement? So , by getting rid of human interaction and pollution, they damn and condemn the bird species to suffer and die from ship pollution, which is far more intrusive and damaging than auto pollution? The logic is interesting, but , in my opinion, misguided.
      We make the choice to subject ourselves to pollution for the pleasure and enjoyment that the ocean and God provides us. The birds don't make that choice. They adapt to what we humans subject them to. So why not help them and relocate them to another, human-safe area? A less human polluted area? Like the newly acquired area on Talbot or Bird Island where they are far removed from human pollutants? Again, I would personally feel better about relocation then subjecting them to the deadlier ship emmissions that we humans subject ourselves to. Unless you feel we should commit the birds to species extinction to save the humans, i.e., removal of cars and people from Huguenot, in which case , is counter to Audubon's goals and charter, as I understand them to be.
      You can't save the birds from by eliminating the cars and people from Huguenot without eliminating the ship traffic also , unless you relocate the birds through State/Federal actions/money to some safer, less polluted area on the coast. There is no argument here,  with any substance,  that will hold water, in my opinion, no pun intended. To stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts , like an ostrich, is , indeed, in my opinion, foolish.

[JettyDog]

I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

"The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River" Jettydog if your facts are true then you and the other beach-goers should be removed for your own safety?

So, following your line of logic and reasoning, then , because of ship pollution, we should remove not only the beach goers, but we should shutter Mayport, (remember the chopper pollution and their overflights here, also)leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attack and drug activity by sea, permanently evacuate the St. Johns River of all residents for a mile on either side from Blount Island to the Jetties all for public safety from ship pollution ? Run that by all the affected parties and see what you get in response, please.
      I think not. What about the birds along that entire stretch? Relocation also? Along with the humans? Hmmmmm, a problem , indeed. I fail to understand the logic behind the statement. Of course, I'm only human, but it is a daring plan. How successful do you think all of it would be? To disrupt an entire city and it's commerce.........for their own safety and to protect the birds at Huguenot. Really.........?

[JettyDog]

I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

"The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River" Jettydog if your facts are true then you and the other beach-goers should be removed for your own safety?

So, following your line of logic and reasoning, then , because of ship pollution, we should remove not only the beach goers, but we should shutter Mayport, (remember the chopper pollution and their overflights here, also)leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attack and drug activity by sea, permanently evacuate the St. Johns River of all residents for a mile on either side from Blount Island to the Jetties all for public safety from ship pollution ? Run that by all the affected parties and see what you get in response, please.
      I think not. What about the birds along that entire stretch? Relocation also? Along with the humans? Hmmmmm, a problem , indeed. I fail to understand the logic behind the statement. Of course, I'm only human, but it is a daring plan. How successful do you think all of it would be? To disrupt an entire city and it's commerce.........for their own safety and to protect the birds at Huguenot. Really.........?

Dear Jettypuppy I feel you have slipped a disk? You're the one that has taken this over the hill and thru the woods. Do you remember my first post on this subject? "In your posting one thing I believe you have left out? Driving on the beach does add to air and water pollution. How about just like in Cape Hatteras a National Park unlike Huguenot Park. The fees for parking on the beach should increase. http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/upload/02-01-12a-FAQ-Site-Bulletin-for-CAHA-ORV-regulation.pdf" So in closing go ahead and believe you're the ONLY person who has the Right Answers. I'm done!

If_I_Loved_You,
     I merely stated the facts here. Container/Cargo/Tanker ships emit more  emissions than the vehicular traffic at Huguenot, therefore the threat of vehicular pollution is understated in view of the larger pollution issues caused by shipping. I provided evidence proving so. I apologize for upsetting you to the point you cannot engage in civil discourse on the subject and must resort to name calling (i.e., "Jettypuppy" ) or misstating facts such as "go ahead and believe you're the ONLY person who has the Right Answers". I am one person with one opinion and I am entitled to voice that opinion, which I will reiterate here. Relocating the birds is the wisest way to protect them from the larger issue of shipping pollution. This also solves the auto  pollution issue you are concerned about. Surely, you can agree to that. Any rational, reasonable person would.